PaliRichard Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Are you aware of how many times the social and legal parameters of marriage have been recast and redefined to serve the prevailing attitudes and pragmatism of the time? Indeed we have a comprehensive tradition of tinkering with marriage. Why should that evolution stop now? You beat me to it! I really don't get the 'marriage is traditional therefore should be between a man and a woman' argument at all, for one it opens a Pandoras box about what exaclty 'traditional' means. For me if you're using the 'traditional' argument you mean 'as taught by the Bible', if you're using this argument it stands to reason that you think all Biblical rulings apply, yet I can't think of anyone who supports the 'traditional' view of marriage who doesn't cherry pick amongst the other Biblical teachings on law(s). There may be other ideas of what traditional means but you never actually get to the nitty gritty of what they are - it seems to be some mystical word that can encompass any view you want it to, yet it's justified because 'it's traditional'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Wouldn't it be nice if people were less emotional on subjects such as this, a civil debate with both sides accepting and understanding each other’s views is the best approach. I don't think there's much to gain by accepting a view that is demonstratably in favour of maintaining inequality. Tolerating intolerance cannot stop intolerance, it must be challenged and not allowed a place in our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Obviously my idea of intolerance is different to you idea of intolerance. As far as I am aware no one supporting gay marriage as been abused, called names or threatened in any way. And your idea of what constitutes 'on this thread' is obviously very different to mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Unaware and no humour intended. Just had another look at it, it looks like the argument will go on forever because neither side can give an explanation for their views that the other side thinks is rational. You don’t think someone’s explanation for opposing gay marriage is rational; they don’t think your explanation for supporting it is rational. At that point it’s just best to agree to disagree because neither side is likely to change their opinion, the alternative is for the argument to turn into a verbal slanging match and then possibly violence. I think both explanations are rational with both sides of the argument having reasonable reason for their opinions. Let's turn the bold bit on it's head. What exactly is irrational about two gay people wanting to get married? Let's be clear to avoid your usual word works, not the difference between gay marriage and civil partership, just gay marriage - what's irrational about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Obviously my idea of intolerance is different to you idea of intolerance. As far as I am aware no one supporting gay marriage as been abused, called names or threatened in any way. You are aware of decades of homophobia, discrimination and hate crimes though surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 No i didn't think you did call anyone a homophobic bigot,but i think there has been a hint or suggestion earlier on the thread that anyone who was against gay marriage should be referred to as such.I wasn't specifically referring to the thread when i said that, i've heard it mentioned on the radio on a phone in programme i was listening to,where people were expressing divided views. Even though i stated i don't believe that it should be assumed that someone is homophobic because they don't agree with gay marriage,i suppose if free speech is encouraged a person does have the right to call someone a homophobic bigot if they wish,but i think they would be jumping to conclusions saying it about someone they had never met,and the only way to judge whether a person is homophobic is to encounter them in person. I do remember once hearing a gay person saying in some situations he preferred someone to be upfront and honest with him with regard to homophobic held beliefs,rather then for them to be false and attempt to conceal their true feelings,i doubt everyone would share that view,you would have to be very thick skinnned to do so. Or comfortable with your sexuality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 As far as I am aware no one supporting gay marriage as been abused, called names or threatened in any way. As I explained earlier calling homosexuality is a sin, as it has been numerous times, is a form of abuse. I'm not calling out on people saying they 'think it's a sin' which I have not read on this thread, but the direct statement that it is. If I was gay I would be offended every time I heard that said, much more so than if I was insulted for my views which I can argue about or change my mind. Besides, the concept that one side in an argument is more offensive than another is nonsense. It is a sign of weakness in the argument when I hear people claim it. Some people are rude, irrespective of their position, it's not their position that makes them rude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Everything I posted here is potentially offensive to gay people. And that was a mere scratch of the surface of homophobia on this thread. (I say 'potentially' offensive, because there are always people who are determinedly not-offended by things that are offensive, and offense is subjective, and blah blah.) Still, whether or not those posts are offensive, or abusive, what they very definitely are is bigoted and homophobic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 And your idea of what constitutes 'on this thread' is obviously very different to mine. This isn’t about people on this thread it’s about everyone that has an opinion on gay marriage and the rights and wrongs of it. ---------- Post added 12-02-2013 at 18:30 ---------- Let's turn the bold bit on it's head. What exactly is irrational about two gay people wanting to get married? Let's be clear to avoid your usual word works, not the difference between gay marriage and civil partership, just gay marriage - what's irrational about it? Nothing in your opinion or my opinion, that doesn’t alter the fact that some people have a different opinion. And whilst I may not agree with their opinion I accept it as their opinion and don’t see anything homophobic or bigoted in holding their opinion. ---------- Post added 12-02-2013 at 18:32 ---------- You are aware of decades of homophobia, discrimination and hate crimes though surely? Yes but I'm not aware that any of the opponents of gay marriage have carried out such discrimination and hate crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 This isn’t about people on this thread it’s about everyone that has an opinion on gay marriage and the rights and wrongs of it. But when I wrote 'on this thread', that means that I was referring to the people on this thread. Your links to the Daily Mail don't really alter my point about how those of us challenging bigotry on this thread are doing so without coming anywhere close to the intolerance expressed by the other side on this thread. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.